Well the area I live in Land owners typically own farm ground... swapping land isnt an option for these people. Might be an option for a guy who owns land on the mountain or something. But that is definitley not the best solution... there is nothing wrong with corner jumping and the land owners need to get over it

Most of the ground in question in Montana is BLM and USFS land that is only good for grazing. Swaps could be made and the landowner could still lease the public land for grazing. Any farm only land, should be sold to the landowners and the funds used to purchase other land.

As a hunter, jumping corners is very inconvenient (PITA). I would much rather have contiguous blocks of land to hunt.

__________________
- Mark

You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you make good use of it.
~ John Quincy Adams

My bet is a lot of land owners would not consider financial incentives anyway - why would they want to. I would not if I was involved.

Bottom line is this is a mess and only the supreme court will decide what is constitutional.

This is a concern for me as well. I don't see where many landowners are going to move. It's going need to be required somehow with as fair a solution offered to the landowner that is reasonable. That said, HB 404 doesn't provide that solution. There needs to be some other legislation.

__________________
- Mark

You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you make good use of it.
~ John Quincy Adams

Jeff, maybe I'm missing something but if there were land swaps and sales and purchases, it should all work out fairly even $$$ wise, shouldn't it?

And I agree that 25% for 2 years shouldn't be that big of deal. That said, I think acces via BM land is the least desirable solution because cooperation is voluntary on the part of the land owner who could decide not to participate and we are back to square one.

I think the best solutions are sales and purchase exchanges, swaps, and permanent easement purchases.

Also, I know a few sections of state land that are not good for hunting becasue they are grain fields, etc., and hold no meaniful game. IMO, the landowner/lesee should be required to purchase those sections as he is the only one who uses and benefits from them. The money from these sales could be used to purchase other lands that offer quality hunting and game habitat.

Just some thoughts.

I agree, BM is weak and could only be a temporary fix, but in the end does open up more public use land. The purchase of surveyed easements is where some funds are needed. And payment for surveys, appraisals, labor hours, paperwork etc.

Land swaps would be easiest, and remember they only need enough for access if that parcel is higher priced farm land. Have the land surveyed by two or more agencies, one chosen from each party. This will keep them all on the up and up. Then trade $ for $ no matter the acres involved.

I like to hunt grain fields for deer and antelope. If it is open to public use and no game is present where there is grain it could be it is being over hunted. I don't feel that there is any future in "required to purchase those sections" it may not be financially possible and may not fit into the lending portfolio of the said rancher. Forced purchase is risky and could be viewed as a element of failure and that could be viewed as a liability.

i own in 80 here in eastern montana, i would have O problem with someone corner crosing on the 2 legal sides ,if there was misuse of the area I would work on a little fencing project to guide people to the right crossing,,,

I am tired of the argument of cant find the corner, pin, ect, if the exact corner cant be found the landowner has no idea where there his private land is, if you dont know where your land is you cannot prosecute for tresspass, i have paid the surveyor, i know the exact location of corners, i dont have a public land corner problem, but if I did I would surely air on the public side,,,

should everyone give a little for the good of the public,,
if not keep every one off the landlocked land and just let it be,,,,
i understand this public ground as state land is supposed to generate income for schools,,
blm, forest service, not so much,,,
the money state land generates vs. the cost of maintaining, rules regulations and what not, i doubt there is much left over to give to the schools anyway,,,

i would have no rpoblem if EVERYONE was banned from these landlocked sections, let the land be what it is gonna be, let it raise wildlife or whatever,,,

when these parcels catch on fire why should public resource money be used to put out the fire, when the roads are bad why should public money be used to fix the road on these places that only a private landowner uses,,
i have personally seen govt agency installing culverts and maintaining these roads at different times makes no since to me,
I see pretty nice shooting range setup on the landlocked piece the rancher drives to all the time to shoot,,,
Where are the answers for these parcels to be made usable by all,

Why should a chosen few get to use these as if they own them,
why shouldnt the american prarie or some other organization compete for the bids on these places and pay double what the landowner pays, put a 6 ft tall 8 wire fence with no gates around them and keep everyone off,

Many people who enjoy the benefits off these parcels treat them as there own, THERE NOT< they are the publics,

Give me one good reason why the public should not be able to enjoy the use of said parcels,,,

Speaking of the Block Mangement deal, How many good parcels of land have been removed,,
How many will be removed in the future,, after the milk river land buy out, how many landowners will pull out of Block,

How many parcels are in block have virtually no game on them,,, I can show you a fair #,
block management is great, it has its flaws,,,
if every public parcel in the state had acces, could we do away with block and let the land owers lease there ground to outfitters,,,

landowners would still have a pay check, would there be enough land for the public to hunt, I dont know, Does the public have a right to hunt private land, no, kindness provides many opportunities,
maybe the offset in moneies from outfitters can make up for loss of grazing or farming on the public land,
i would pay 10x what I pay now to be able to use every parcel of public land in the state, if everyone paid this sum, how much money would be lost to the governments and schools,

every recreationist paying 100.00 per family per year for a permit to acces any public ground in the state would bring it lots of cash,,,

I realize I have an odd point of view, others do as well,, it may not be correct, we all need to realize there can be solutions for all, not solutions that benefit a few,,,,

this idea has been around forever, how has the situation gotten better for the public,, has it gotten worse for landowers,

if a landowner doesnt have enough energy to find his corners, fix his fences, post all his land so its clearly marked so its clear to see where trespass could take place, why should anyone be convicted of trespass,

Idaho has a much more comon sense approach to trespass laws, mark your land, farm it or irrigate it, if not, dont worry about people trespassing on your land, if the land is the actual thing that is so valuable a landower will take care to see any and all things can be done to prevent trespass,

QUOTE=Broz;770080]So Mike if they wanted to make a walk way across the corner of your back yard to access a lot with no access you would be ok with them using that corner of your private property for a traffic point?

Visualize an , x , you own the left and right corners. They need x amount of feet left and right each direction of your private property. You should just let them use it or give it to them?

I like to hunt grain fields for deer and antelope. If it is open to public use and no game is present where there is grain it could be it is being over hunted. I don't feel that there is any future in "required to purchase those sections" it may not be financially possible and may not fit into the lending portfolio of the said rancher. Forced purchase is risky and could be viewed as a element of failure and that could be viewed as a liability.

Jeff

I am thinking of a few specific sections around the Amsterdam/Manhattan area that just do not have any meaningful game. There is no cover and it is basically bare with short stubble after harvest and of little interest to deer (no antelope at all) or birds. I would propose they be sold to the lessees for a more than fair price with a no interest payment plan. Like maybe double the current lease, and then when purchased they start paying taxes like everyone else. If that causes a financial hardship, well then time to consider other options. But this is good producing land and I don't see where it would be a hardship. It is essentially public land that only that only one private party uses and that should be corrected IMO. I'm guessing there may be similar plots around the state.

__________________
- Mark

You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you make good use of it.
~ John Quincy Adams